Situated near the city center, the Gheorgheni district is the second largest residential area built in Cluj (the first one is the Grigorescu District). Before the reshaping of the district in communist years, it consisted of semiurban living units with large gardens and meadows. The initial plan (1964) was signed by Augustin Presecan as the main architect, Vasile Mitrea and Aurelian Buzuloiu. In 1965, they put the final touches on areas I and II, that can still be seen today.
The solutions offered by architects in the two modernist neighborhoods brought them many national awards and established their work as an example of remarkable creativity, featured in national and international publications. There is no wonder why Grigorescu and Gheorgheni are still the locals’ favorite districts.
The international success of Gheorgheni district at that time is illustrated by an article in Neue Wohngebiete sozialisticher Länder/ Rietdorf, Werner/Verla für Bauwesen, 1976.

In 1969, architect Augustin Presecan designed area III, while arch. Domnica Litvin was in charge of engineering area IV – Alverna. The approximately 30,000 people who were to live in Gheorgheni could now count on around 8,900 apartments. The Mercur commercial complex, completed in 1968 by arch. Mircea Amitroaiei, was designed as the central point for areas I and II.

The Mercur commercial complex, finalized in 1968 by architect Mircea Amitroaiei, was designed to be the central area of microdistricts I and II. The neighborhood center was initially planned to be used only by microdistricts I and II and the surrounding area – the city west from Gheorgheni district.The neighborhood center was further used as building area for new living units.The urban composition is inspired by the functionalism of the ’60s, that puts living units in the center, while the other amenities come along in a certain hierarchy and balance: two kindergartens, two schools, two shopping areas, one multifunctional nucleus surrounding the Mercur complex and a clinic.There was great care for the quality of life during those times and this led to the building of a neighborhood garden in 1970 – south of the microdistrict II, on the contiguous flank. This green space included different functions such as: playgrounds, a reading pavilion, an open space amphitheater and a few sport grounds. After 1955, a series of collective living units were built in the eastern part of the garden, cutting into the green area.The majority of the buildings were long low rises (5 floors), with accents of tall blades or 11 floor towers.

Microdistricts I and II are built/positioned on terraces 3-5 meters high and are divided by a central axis (Unirii Street) that emphasizes the two platforms, naturally including them in the existing space. The 4-5 floor buildings emphasize the superior part of the southern platform of microdistrict II. The separating batter south of Unirii Street was conceived as promenade and it was landscaped accordingly.

The density of the living units I and II (296 people/ha) is increasing the average density of the four microdistricts, turning Gheorgheni into the 3rd most dense district in Cluj, after Manastur and the city center. The urban integration of the existing natural environment (by using the existing vegetation and emphasizing the building area of the two platforms) indicates a very subtle approach in the planning phase, which finally manages to increase the quality of life in the areas. Let’s not ignore the beautiful perspective and the volumetric coherence of the ensemble.A great majority of the apartments have optimal orientation, obtained through great attention to proportions. Each building’s placement has been subject to attentive study, considering the terrain. A certain rhythm is given by the tall buildings on the side of the road, creating a dynamic landscape. An ingenious solution for both vehicle and pedestrian access has kept traffic light in the area.

The demolitions of the ’70s were intended to densify the built area, but this had little influence over the identity of the initial concept of the ensemble.

Starting in 1977, the urban planning strategies focused on adding new towers, similar to the existing ones. Urban planning after 1990: the “Buna ziua” district was developed east of Calea Turzii, by extending the metropolitan area of Cluj southwards, following the General Urban Plan of 1991.

The playful arrangement of the balconies created dynamic fronts and better lighting. A typical element in the architecture of those times is the concrete pergola decorating the tops of blade-shaped buildings – enabling what may look like a smooth negotiation with the skyline. The power of this element comes from the surface on which it stands and the rhythm it creates together with it.

In other situations, there is an interesting and playful use of volumes – the functional separation between the staircase and the apartment area.

The rhythm of the façades is also established through the placement of the loggias at the end of the joist. Other decorations like fretwork conceal the staircases, while cordons emphasize the floors.

Green spaces were given great importance in the epoch as a means to improve the quality of life. Parks and private gardens were encouraged. In 1979 there was a plan to develop the leisure area Grigorescu-Manastur, upriver from the Garibaldi bridge, up to the western limit of the city. The plan included the promenades along the Somes River, a lake for recreational activities, the extension of the Victor Babes Park and of the Manastur swimming area, destined for nautical activities.

Although the Gheorgheni district includes a diversity of volumes, styles and functions, the overall perception is, interestingly enough, of omogenity and a strong visual identity that reflects the urban planning of socialist architecture of the ’70s. For this reason, we consider a set of regulations should be created in order to protect and preserve the unique characteristics of the area.

CURRENT STATE

Living Units with Ground Level and 4 Stories

[pictures a1, a4, a6, a7]

The current state of the low-rise living units bears little resemblance to their initial state: (designed and built in ’64-’69) mosaic façades have been covered during the energetic rehabilitation [picture a7] with Styrofoam slabs that were later plastered.

Besides the decrease in the quality of the finishes, the energetic rehabilitation came with the disadvantage of distorting the building’s proportions and architectural details such as the burs in the façade that use belts to conceal the floors, the plinth or the cornice; also, the balconies seem to rise from an air-locked box of Styrofoam. This unsupervised rehabilitation (in terms of color and proportion) with different styles of closed balconies transformed the building from a coherent visual ensemble into a clutter of improvisations that significantly reduced its value. [picture a5,a8,a9]

The pictures below [a3 and a10] show the differences between an open balcony that follows the initial design line and an improvised closed balcony. Besides the aesthetic downside, this DIY initiative also brought changes that can affect indoor ventilation. Fortunately, the fretwork that decorates the staircase – a typical element of those times – hasn’t been altered so far (except being repainted a few times).

Living Units with Ground Level and 10-11 Stories

These tall buildings use joists and blades and because the construction took place over different years, some elements of shape and structure are changed (second phase took place during the massive construction of the ’70s). Taller buildings face even greater problems. Because of their height and the lower quality of construction materials and finishes, the exterior cement-lime mortar plaster is degraded and needs full rehabilitation. The upper floors were the most damaged by rain water leakage (either from direct contact with the plastering or through the untight cover of the terraces). [picture b3a, b5, b10] Leakage is found in the rain shadows and loggias. [picture b6, b7]. Unfortunately, the choice of color for the redone exterior finishing [picture b1 compared to b3a] is very inappropriate (brown/orange). Also, some parts have been left untouched (the concrete pergola of the terrace) and the diverse finishes of balconies spoils visual coherence. The incomplete closing of the loggias affects the aesthetics of the towers and of the residential area as a whole: there are different colors and woodwork in each balcony. This, together with partial energetic rehabilitation [picture b4] and design improvisations, turn the buildings into desolate elements of urban space, with significantly decreased value. As far as the tall buildings are concerned, the exterior finishing of small mosaic slates are used on small surfaces just to emphasize certain elements (entrance decoration – picture b8, the decoration of loggias railing at the end of the girder – picture b7). The blade-shaped buildings are the only ones to have their windows separated by long mosaic strips [picture b4, b6, b9, b10]. There are many elements that compromise the original façade and among the most intrusive are the satellite dishes. Even though they were meant to be placed on terraces, they cover entire balconies and windows. [picture b10]

Mercur Commercial Complex

Some of the buildings in the Mercur commercial complex require restoration – rain water leakage and pollution particles severely deteriorated the façades. Repairs were only partial, in different colors than the original. Another persisting problem are parasitic structures built around the complex – improvised stands and kiosks – as well as advertising signs that ruin the aesthetics of the ensemble. Even though they were secondary functions of the ensemble, garbage disposals, garages and different storage spaces were essential elements, designed in the same socialist modernist style and deserving consideration and repair.

The main commercial complex of the neighborhood is a two storey high building located on a little hill [picture c1] – we have to admit that the choice of location adds a certain charm to the building. The architects used the terrain to create entrances on different height levels, obtaining a building that blends with the natural landscape. The food market is placed outdoor, but has a metallic covering system typical for this sort of establishment. Some other services hosted in this building are the Post Office, a pharmacy, a stationer’s, a convenience store, a restaurant and a carwash. Besides Mercur, other commercial activities take place in the Hermes complex and Diana complex and, starting 2007, Iulius Mall and Auchan hypermarket opened. At the moment, Profi has commissioned the commercial space inside Mercur and placed its logo on the building, covering the original „Mercur” sign. Despite that, locals still use the original name when referring to the location. Some of the buildings in the complex require restoration. Repairs have been made but only partially, using different colors than the original. Also, the advertising signs hinder the aesthetics of the ensemble.

Public Buildings

[picture d1- d10]

Schools, kindergartens, commercial and administrative spaces follow a functionalist planning of the neighborhood. They are surrounded by large green areas that put the building in a certain perspective, while offering a great view from inside out. The schools and kindergartens have modernist elements: simple prisms with large windows for a proper lighting of the classrooms. The designers of the neighbourhood made sure there would be plenty of „Air, light and greenery”, elements defined by Le Corbusier as essential. Simple volumes, horizontal strips with windows that connect the interior with the exterior and visible staircases are some of the elements of modernism that create a characteristic dynamic. Unfortunately, the effects were diminished by the use of low quality curtains, by the lack of consideration for the conservation of orginal woodwork and by the construction of parasitic garages and improvised finishes with cheap-looking materials. The spiral staircase is outrageously covered in the cheapest metal grating. [picture d5] Here, as in other places, problems arise because of the lack of maintenance of the façades: no repairs have been made, while rain water leakage did an enormous damage to large areas of the plastering. Mold, broken handrails with unfinished concrete plinths [picture d1, d6] represent a real danger, while clearly reducing the value of the building many times. Other negative aspects can be noticed on the secondary façades, where garbage bins dominate the area (instead of having their own location somewhere behind the building), while utility meters and air conditioning boxes hinder the building’s volumetric structure.

Green Spaces

There are numerous green spaces that follow a landscaping plan of alternance between green lawns and planted areas with bushes and scrubs that create a healthy environment for the locals.The small hills are well integrated in the design of the area – a very specific characteristic of socialist modernist architecture that should be preserved by authorities through clear urban planning regulations. [picture e1-e2]

Garbage disposals, garages and different storage spaces

Despite being secondary functions of the ensemble, these are essential elements designed in the same socialist modernist style and require care and consideration. We recommend that all the smaller amenities receive their well-deserved repairs. [picture f1-f5]

COPYRIGHT. The content of this site belongs to BACU and our collaborators and is protected under copyright law. You can use these materials only with the written consent of the author.

GHEORGHENI DISTRICT (CLUJ-NAPOCA)

Situated near the city center, the Gheorgheni district is the second largest residential area built in Cluj (the first one is the Grigorescu District). Before the reshaping of the district in communist years, it consisted of semiurban living units with large gardens and meadows. The initial plan (1964) was signed by Augustin Presecan as the main architect, Vasile Mitrea and Aurelian Buzuloiu. In 1965, they put the final touches on areas I and II, that can still be seen today.
The solutions offered by architects in the two modernist neighborhoods brought them many national awards and established their work as an example of remarkable creativity, featured in national and international publications. There is no wonder why Grigorescu and Gheorgheni are still the locals’ favorite districts.
The international success of Gheorgheni district at that time is illustrated by an article in Neue Wohngebiete sozialisticher Länder/ Rietdorf, Werner/Verla für Bauwesen, 1976.

In 1969, architect Augustin Presecan designed area III, while arch. Domnica Litvin was in charge of engineering area IV – Alverna. The approximately 30,000 people who were to live in Gheorgheni could now count on around 8,900 apartments. The Mercur commercial complex, completed in 1968 by arch. Mircea Amitroaiei, was designed as the central point for areas I and II.

The Mercur commercial complex, finalized in 1968 by architect Mircea Amitroaiei, was designed to be the central area of microdistricts I and II. The neighborhood center was initially planned to be used only by microdistricts I and II and the surrounding area – the city west from Gheorgheni district.The neighborhood center was further used as building area for new living units.The urban composition is inspired by the functionalism of the ’60s, that puts living units in the center, while the other amenities come along in a certain hierarchy and balance: two kindergartens, two schools, two shopping areas, one multifunctional nucleus surrounding the Mercur complex and a clinic.There was great care for the quality of life during those times and this led to the building of a neighborhood garden in 1970 – south of the microdistrict II, on the contiguous flank. This green space included different functions such as: playgrounds, a reading pavilion, an open space amphitheater and a few sport grounds. After 1955, a series of collective living units were built in the eastern part of the garden, cutting into the green area.The majority of the buildings were long low rises (5 floors), with accents of tall blades or 11 floor towers.

Microdistricts I and II are built/positioned on terraces 3-5 meters high and are divided by a central axis (Unirii Street) that emphasizes the two platforms, naturally including them in the existing space. The 4-5 floor buildings emphasize the superior part of the southern platform of microdistrict II. The separating batter south of Unirii Street was conceived as promenade and it was landscaped accordingly.

The density of the living units I and II (296 people/ha) is increasing the average density of the four microdistricts, turning Gheorgheni into the 3rd most dense district in Cluj, after Manastur and the city center. The urban integration of the existing natural environment (by using the existing vegetation and emphasizing the building area of the two platforms) indicates a very subtle approach in the planning phase, which finally manages to increase the quality of life in the areas. Let’s not ignore the beautiful perspective and the volumetric coherence of the ensemble.A great majority of the apartments have optimal orientation, obtained through great attention to proportions. Each building’s placement has been subject to attentive study, considering the terrain. A certain rhythm is given by the tall buildings on the side of the road, creating a dynamic landscape. An ingenious solution for both vehicle and pedestrian access has kept traffic light in the area.

The demolitions of the ’70s were intended to densify the built area, but this had little influence over the identity of the initial concept of the ensemble.

Starting in 1977, the urban planning strategies focused on adding new towers, similar to the existing ones. Urban planning after 1990: the “Buna ziua” district was developed east of Calea Turzii, by extending the metropolitan area of Cluj southwards, following the General Urban Plan of 1991.

The playful arrangement of the balconies created dynamic fronts and better lighting. A typical element in the architecture of those times is the concrete pergola decorating the tops of blade-shaped buildings – enabling what may look like a smooth negotiation with the skyline. The power of this element comes from the surface on which it stands and the rhythm it creates together with it.

In other situations, there is an interesting and playful use of volumes – the functional separation between the staircase and the apartment area.

The rhythm of the façades is also established through the placement of the loggias at the end of the joist. Other decorations like fretwork conceal the staircases, while cordons emphasize the floors.

Green spaces were given great importance in the epoch as a means to improve the quality of life. Parks and private gardens were encouraged. In 1979 there was a plan to develop the leisure area Grigorescu-Manastur, upriver from the Garibaldi bridge, up to the western limit of the city. The plan included the promenades along the Somes River, a lake for recreational activities, the extension of the Victor Babes Park and of the Manastur swimming area, destined for nautical activities.

Although the Gheorgheni district includes a diversity of volumes, styles and functions, the overall perception is, interestingly enough, of omogenity and a strong visual identity that reflects the urban planning of socialist architecture of the ’70s. For this reason, we consider a set of regulations should be created in order to protect and preserve the unique characteristics of the area.

CURRENT STATE

Living Units with Ground Level and 4 Stories

[pictures a1, a4, a6, a7]

The current state of the low-rise living units bears little resemblance to their initial state: (designed and built in ’64-’69) mosaic façades have been covered during the energetic rehabilitation [picture a7] with Styrofoam slabs that were later plastered.

Besides the decrease in the quality of the finishes, the energetic rehabilitation came with the disadvantage of distorting the building’s proportions and architectural details such as the burs in the façade that use belts to conceal the floors, the plinth or the cornice; also, the balconies seem to rise from an air-locked box of Styrofoam. This unsupervised rehabilitation (in terms of color and proportion) with different styles of closed balconies transformed the building from a coherent visual ensemble into a clutter of improvisations that significantly reduced its value. [picture a5,a8,a9]

The pictures below [a3 and a10] show the differences between an open balcony that follows the initial design line and an improvised closed balcony. Besides the aesthetic downside, this DIY initiative also brought changes that can affect indoor ventilation. Fortunately, the fretwork that decorates the staircase – a typical element of those times – hasn’t been altered so far (except being repainted a few times).

Living Units with Ground Level and 10-11 Stories

These tall buildings use joists and blades and because the construction took place over different years, some elements of shape and structure are changed (second phase took place during the massive construction of the ’70s). Taller buildings face even greater problems. Because of their height and the lower quality of construction materials and finishes, the exterior cement-lime mortar plaster is degraded and needs full rehabilitation. The upper floors were the most damaged by rain water leakage (either from direct contact with the plastering or through the untight cover of the terraces). [picture b3a, b5, b10] Leakage is found in the rain shadows and loggias. [picture b6, b7]. Unfortunately, the choice of color for the redone exterior finishing [picture b1 compared to b3a] is very inappropriate (brown/orange). Also, some parts have been left untouched (the concrete pergola of the terrace) and the diverse finishes of balconies spoils visual coherence. The incomplete closing of the loggias affects the aesthetics of the towers and of the residential area as a whole: there are different colors and woodwork in each balcony. This, together with partial energetic rehabilitation [picture b4] and design improvisations, turn the buildings into desolate elements of urban space, with significantly decreased value. As far as the tall buildings are concerned, the exterior finishing of small mosaic slates are used on small surfaces just to emphasize certain elements (entrance decoration – picture b8, the decoration of loggias railing at the end of the girder – picture b7). The blade-shaped buildings are the only ones to have their windows separated by long mosaic strips [picture b4, b6, b9, b10]. There are many elements that compromise the original façade and among the most intrusive are the satellite dishes. Even though they were meant to be placed on terraces, they cover entire balconies and windows. [picture b10]

Mercur Commercial Complex

Some of the buildings in the Mercur commercial complex require restoration – rain water leakage and pollution particles severely deteriorated the façades. Repairs were only partial, in different colors than the original. Another persisting problem are parasitic structures built around the complex – improvised stands and kiosks – as well as advertising signs that ruin the aesthetics of the ensemble. Even though they were secondary functions of the ensemble, garbage disposals, garages and different storage spaces were essential elements, designed in the same socialist modernist style and deserving consideration and repair.

The main commercial complex of the neighborhood is a two storey high building located on a little hill [picture c1] – we have to admit that the choice of location adds a certain charm to the building. The architects used the terrain to create entrances on different height levels, obtaining a building that blends with the natural landscape. The food market is placed outdoor, but has a metallic covering system typical for this sort of establishment. Some other services hosted in this building are the Post Office, a pharmacy, a stationer’s, a convenience store, a restaurant and a carwash. Besides Mercur, other commercial activities take place in the Hermes complex and Diana complex and, starting 2007, Iulius Mall and Auchan hypermarket opened. At the moment, Profi has commissioned the commercial space inside Mercur and placed its logo on the building, covering the original „Mercur” sign. Despite that, locals still use the original name when referring to the location. Some of the buildings in the complex require restoration. Repairs have been made but only partially, using different colors than the original. Also, the advertising signs hinder the aesthetics of the ensemble.

Public Buildings

[picture d1- d10]

Schools, kindergartens, commercial and administrative spaces follow a functionalist planning of the neighborhood. They are surrounded by large green areas that put the building in a certain perspective, while offering a great view from inside out. The schools and kindergartens have modernist elements: simple prisms with large windows for a proper lighting of the classrooms. The designers of the neighbourhood made sure there would be plenty of „Air, light and greenery”, elements defined by Le Corbusier as essential. Simple volumes, horizontal strips with windows that connect the interior with the exterior and visible staircases are some of the elements of modernism that create a characteristic dynamic. Unfortunately, the effects were diminished by the use of low quality curtains, by the lack of consideration for the conservation of orginal woodwork and by the construction of parasitic garages and improvised finishes with cheap-looking materials. The spiral staircase is outrageously covered in the cheapest metal grating. [picture d5] Here, as in other places, problems arise because of the lack of maintenance of the façades: no repairs have been made, while rain water leakage did an enormous damage to large areas of the plastering. Mold, broken handrails with unfinished concrete plinths [picture d1, d6] represent a real danger, while clearly reducing the value of the building many times. Other negative aspects can be noticed on the secondary façades, where garbage bins dominate the area (instead of having their own location somewhere behind the building), while utility meters and air conditioning boxes hinder the building’s volumetric structure.

Green Spaces

There are numerous green spaces that follow a landscaping plan of alternance between green lawns and planted areas with bushes and scrubs that create a healthy environment for the locals.The small hills are well integrated in the design of the area – a very specific characteristic of socialist modernist architecture that should be preserved by authorities through clear urban planning regulations. [picture e1-e2]

Garbage disposals, garages and different storage spaces

Despite being secondary functions of the ensemble, these are essential elements designed in the same socialist modernist style and require care and consideration. We recommend that all the smaller amenities receive their well-deserved repairs. [picture f1-f5]

COPYRIGHT. The content of this site belongs to BACU and our collaborators and is protected under copyright law. You can use these materials only with the written consent of the author.

Socialist Modernism platform is a B.A.C.U. Association project that fights for the acknowledgement of certain socialist landmarks as historic monuments. We focus on neighbourhoods, buildings, monuments, parks, squares, entire districts and green areas etc. built between 1955 and 1989/1991 in the former socialist bloc (Central and Eastern Europe), in order to research, document and add them to a database (including information on their location, current condition, designers and history).